aeiveos.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Reversible Computing by bradbury · 2004-04-06 05:24 · Score: 1 · on Why We Need a Second Moore's Law

Sigh... Computing can be done essentially for free. This has been worked out long ago by Landauer and Bennett. The problem is that whenever you erase bits you generate heat. The solution to this is to use reversible computing. This was the design behind Drexler's rod-logic nanocomputer (Nanosystems, 1992) which produced a system that that could do a trillion MIPS using 100W (and yes those numbers are accurate). Currently the best work on reversible computing is probably being done by Dr. Michael Frank at the Univ. of Florida. He is trying to produce reversible computing systems using current manufacturing methods rather than those we may have to wait 20 years for.

Robert

Re:Matrioshka Brain by Saeger · 2004-03-18 14:09 · Score: 1 · on UFO Streaks Through Martian sky

Forgot the matrioshka brain linkage.

--

Re:Bio-diesel and Refuse biomass by drinkypoo · 2004-02-13 11:19 · Score: 1 · on Ethanol to Hydrogen Reactor Developed

You're right that this is not the solution. According to http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Papers/Photosynth eticEfficiency.html the efficiency is between 1 and about 7 to 10 percent in the real world. Solar is 10-20% efficient...

An upset to the apple cart by bradbury · 2004-02-09 12:05 · Score: 2, Interesting · on What If Dark Matter Really Doesn't Exist?

The whole dark matter/dark energy perspective could be flawed. It depends upon the perspective that the Universe (as viewed) is most probably dead. It does not ask the question of what the Universe would look like if it were alive. But as work by Charles Lineweaver (a noted physicist at the Univ. of NSW) and his students have shown that may be a very questionable assumption. Their work suggests *most* of the Earths (60%+) in this Universe should be *much* older than ours.

So the question must be raised *what* would the Universe look like if /.ers had had a billion or more years to work on it? Yes, I know that many of you will argue that it should not look much different but you have not run the numbers as I have on planetary disassembly times. Nor do you understand the limits of nanotechnology to the extent that I do.

I've tried to explore and address some of these questions in my papers about Matrioshka Brains as has Dr. Sandberg in his exploration of the various types of Jupiter Brains.

These are not new concepts -- they have been discussed on the Extropians list for perhaps a decade. There are a few good astronmers and astrophysicists who discuss these ideas but to a large extent mainstream science seems stuck in the paradigm that the universe simply must be dead.

Until we deal with whether or not that is a fundamental misconception we may be plagued by concepts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy that could be resting on very questionable evidence.

Robert

An upset to the apple cart by bradbury · 2004-02-09 12:05 · Score: 2, Interesting · on What If Dark Matter Really Doesn't Exist?

The whole dark matter/dark energy perspective could be flawed. It depends upon the perspective that the Universe (as viewed) is most probably dead. It does not ask the question of what the Universe would look like if it were alive. But as work by Charles Lineweaver (a noted physicist at the Univ. of NSW) and his students have shown that may be a very questionable assumption. Their work suggests *most* of the Earths (60%+) in this Universe should be *much* older than ours.

So the question must be raised *what* would the Universe look like if /.ers had had a billion or more years to work on it? Yes, I know that many of you will argue that it should not look much different but you have not run the numbers as I have on planetary disassembly times. Nor do you understand the limits of nanotechnology to the extent that I do.

I've tried to explore and address some of these questions in my papers about Matrioshka Brains as has Dr. Sandberg in his exploration of the various types of Jupiter Brains.

These are not new concepts -- they have been discussed on the Extropians list for perhaps a decade. There are a few good astronmers and astrophysicists who discuss these ideas but to a large extent mainstream science seems stuck in the paradigm that the universe simply must be dead.

Until we deal with whether or not that is a fundamental misconception we may be plagued by concepts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy that could be resting on very questionable evidence.

Robert

An upset to the apple cart by bradbury · 2004-02-09 12:05 · Score: 2, Interesting · on What If Dark Matter Really Doesn't Exist?

The whole dark matter/dark energy perspective could be flawed. It depends upon the perspective that the Universe (as viewed) is most probably dead. It does not ask the question of what the Universe would look like if it were alive. But as work by Charles Lineweaver (a noted physicist at the Univ. of NSW) and his students have shown that may be a very questionable assumption. Their work suggests *most* of the Earths (60%+) in this Universe should be *much* older than ours.

So the question must be raised *what* would the Universe look like if /.ers had had a billion or more years to work on it? Yes, I know that many of you will argue that it should not look much different but you have not run the numbers as I have on planetary disassembly times. Nor do you understand the limits of nanotechnology to the extent that I do.

I've tried to explore and address some of these questions in my papers about Matrioshka Brains as has Dr. Sandberg in his exploration of the various types of Jupiter Brains.

These are not new concepts -- they have been discussed on the Extropians list for perhaps a decade. There are a few good astronmers and astrophysicists who discuss these ideas but to a large extent mainstream science seems stuck in the paradigm that the universe simply must be dead.

Until we deal with whether or not that is a fundamental misconception we may be plagued by concepts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy that could be resting on very questionable evidence.

Robert

Re:I wouldn't worry by Saeger · 2003-11-15 11:28 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Earth's Asteroid Risk Downgraded

or iii) have unimaginable technology such as planet wide deflector shields

With "unimaginable technology" why would you assume the majority of life will still be living in fragile bio-based bodies at the bottom of gravity wells with tons of wasted molecular building material beneath our feet?

I say we rip the Earth apart to put it to better use - sentimental value be damned! :)

--

Re:to paraphrase by Saeger · 2003-11-05 11:09 · Score: 1 · on Voyager 1 Reaches Interstellar Space

It is as if there is a huge amount of hidden mass which is influencing its rotation.

My favorite explaination for dark matter: It's advanced ETs who've built Dyson shell sized brains around stars to exploit every last drop of energy.

--

Re:SETI not so bad. by bradbury · 2003-10-11 00:08 · Score: 1 · on New Seti@Home Client to be Open to Other Projects

First, ultimately you're guessing. We just don't know because extra-terrestrial life hasn't wandered by to say hello.

Ca-ca. I'm completely willing to allow for the fact that the Earth is infested with a nanoscale ET lifeform that we haven't bothered to look for. We could easily be under observation on a continual basis (on-world or off-world) but be completely unable to verify that. The majority of the current SETI searches depend on the fact that advanced civilizations are going to "talk" to worms. The scientists conducting the searches are the ones invoking improbabilities -- not I.

Second, you assume that an advanced civilization would be willing to speak to such a lowly race as ourselves. Why not? If I thought nematode worms were sentient I'd strongly support studying and interacting with them. [snip]

You just don't get it (and I'd advise you read some of my papers before you reply to this). You have to assert that a species with 10^15 times less thought capacity (yes, I mean all 6+ billion humans combined) can be considered "sentient". I don't know about you, but I'd consider things at that primitive level of development to be grains of sand. Your argument is reasonable when one is comparing humans with apes, dolphins, etc. -- their brain scales (and thought capacities) are relatively similar but the argument rapidly loses merit as the intelligence scale differences increase.

The advanced civilization might just get in touch to be nice. "Gosh, it really sucked when we were so primative and thought we were alone in the universe, let's say hi to the silly monkey men, it's cheer them up."

Why make the effort? They (us apes) cannot understand an advanced civilization, we cannot contribute in a way that might offset the energy expenditure they need to contact us, there is no concept of "charity" (advanced civilizations have long since realized there is no God and the Universe is probably pretty unforgiving). You have to provide a rational argument (rather than an emotional one) that contact may be useful in some way. Civilizations that master the survival game (and therefore dominate the sentient population in the galaxy) should be acting in their own self-interest. Playing around with children (really sub-sub-sub children) has limited self-survival benefits.

Finally, who says we're looking for an advanced civilization? Maybe we'll find a civilization at roughly the same technological level as we are now (or at least was at that level when the signals were generated). [snip]

The lifetime of civilizations at our level is very short in terms of galactic timescales -- look at our advancement over the last 400 or even 100 years. In another 100 years we will have evolved into a Jupiter Brain or a Matrioshka Brain or if we choose to remain as individuals we will be colonizing the galaxy. In the last case there is a significant probability we will be sending out AI probes -- *not* radio signals. That is because the data content of and what the probes can be accomplish is far greater.

GO DO THE NUMBERS! Determine the maximum distance at which our current detectors could detect a civilization emitting at energies and frequencies that our civilization emits. I've read the papers and the numbers are not promising. Then compute the probability that a civilization is at our level of development within the range of what we can detect. The numbers get worse. Part of the problem is that advanced civilizations will not radiate RF energy -- it is wasteful -- they will have switched to something like fiber optics and as a result will have gone dark. The only thing you will be able to detect is their heat signature.

Your attack is just mean spirited and not very convincing.

I do not think my points can be considered mean spirited if I am attempting to get people to educate themselves and think in a rational way about the allocation of their energ

Alterior Motives? by Nerdgasm · 2003-10-10 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative · on New Seti@Home Client to be Open to Other Projects

It may also be important to note that Robert was the person that authored the first nano@home proposal. So he has a vested interest in seeing users move from seti@home.

nano@home proposal

BOINC good; SETI@Home Bad by bradbury · 2003-10-09 21:02 · Score: 3, Interesting · on New Seti@Home Client to be Open to Other Projects

I disagree with Adam Beberg's (Duncan3)comments regarding BOINC as being somewhat outdated. In contrast I view it as being potentially very usefull in allowing users to allocate their spare CPU resources to the most useful projects. [Adam I believe was a significant contributer to the Folding@Home project, so he can be considered an informed source with regard to the perspective of the distribution of "work-units".]

However, the promotion of SETI@Home by anyone demonstrates they have not looked at the problem in detail.

There is reasonably extensive documentation on the probable intelligence of advanced civilizations (for example see papers by Dr. Anders Sandberg (here) or myself (here). As I have pointed out at conferences and in papers the difference between an advanced civilization and the human civilization is ~10^24 Ops. The difference between a single human and and a nematode worm is ~10^15 Ops. We don't talk to worms and advanced civilizations don't talk to us!

Furthermore the entire SETI effort does not take into account the information content of an advanced civilization. By my estimates this is of the order of 10^50 bits (probably more). One cannot communicate even an extremely small fraction of that information content across interstellar space using radio waves. They simply lack the information carrying capacity. So the SETI Institute, Drake, Tarter, Shostak, et al have sold millions of computer users (as well as Paul Allen) a "bill of goods" without having done their fundamental homework on the limits of evolution of civilizations. Why on earth would one attempt to communicate with a civilization that is fundamentally less sophisticated than a nematode worm and with whom it is impossible to exchange a significant amount of information that one has at ones disposal?

In contrast Marvin Minsky (probably one of the leading AI experts in the world) and Freeman Dyson (a brilliant mathematician/physicist who should have won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the Tomonaga/Schwinger/Feynman contribution to quantum electrodynamics were it not for the Prize limits of 3 individuals) had this worked out in 1971 at the conference between Russian and foreign scientists at the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory. Direct quote from the proceedings edited by Sagan:

MINSKY: Since radiation at any temperature above 3 deg. K is wasteful and a squandering of natural resources, the higher the civilization, the lower the infrared radiation. We should look for extended sources of 4 deg. K radiation. There should be very few natural such sources.

DYSON: I don't quite go along with this but to some extent you are right.

Minsky obtaining a concession from Dyson is significant. It has been ignored by the "radio waves from aliens" camp. They *will not* be trying to talk to us. But we *might* be able to observe them in the IR detection region. (Unfortunately IR detection is difficult to do from ground based telescopes.)

So the bottom line -- reallocate your spare computer resources to projects like folding or in the future to Nano@Home. SETI@Home is never going to succeed. It is based on outdated fantasies. Telescopes like the failed WIRE mission or the recently launched SIRTF *may* be able to detect alien civilizations but efforts such as SETI@Home are pointless until such time as the supporters make the case that advanced civilizations would want to waste their time communicating with sub-worm civilizations.

Robert

Re:Artificial Scarcity by Saeger · 2003-08-26 08:51 · Score: 1 · on Diamonds & the RIAA

By the way, this is the original "Dyson's Sphere", Trek notwithstanding.

The updated version of the Dyson Sphere would be the Matrioshka Brain. it's also one theory on where all the dark matter is hiding: behind star-shells. :)

We do lack the willpower to collect it.

We also lack the ability to "grow" solar cells as easily and cheaply as nature does it (for now).

--

Javascript nonstandard and nonproductive by bradbury · 2003-08-25 07:11 · Score: 1 · on JavaScript and DHTML Cookbook

To the best of my knowledge Javascript is not a standard language approved by a "standards" making body (e.g. ANSI, ISO, etc.). It will also routinely crash or cause errors in Netscape browsers and/or suck up CPU time better devoted to distributed computing projects. The reasonable thing for an intelligent user to do is to browse the web with Javascript disabled. Who knows what security holes may lurk in Javascript code? More information on why not to use Javascript and how to write code that makes the clients happy (i.e. it downloads fast) is here.

SIRTF may discover advanced civilizations by bradbury · 2003-08-25 03:57 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Infrared Telescope Lifts Off

It is worth noting that the SIRTF SWIRE survey may be able to detect solar system sized supercomputers, aka Matrioshka Brains. For discussion see the thread starting here and navigate using the icons in the upper right hand corner of the screen.

Flywheels? by Daemonik · 2003-08-19 07:39 · Score: 5, Interesting · on A Fully Distributed Power Grid?

Why not provide every homeowner/business with a flywheel UPS. The flywheel could charge itself during off peak hours and provide the homeowner's peak energy needs without drawing excessively from the grid.

In the event of a grid failure, the house would draw power from the flywheel until the grid could come back up. The flywheel could also be used to regulate the power entering the house eliminating surges and brownouts.

Flywheels are more environmentaly friendly than a bank of batteries and less hazardous than storing volatile gasses.

Re:Bad For The Environment by bradbury · 2003-07-24 07:42 · Score: 1 · on Missouri Wins American Solar Challenge

You don't have to get Congress to OK funding (in fact its probably even a bad idea to let them know that you are planning to disassemble planets). All you have to do is design the nanobots to do the heavy lifting tasks (and throw in a fair amount of systems administration engineering to keep them all coordinated) and throw them at the project.

For more see the Matrioshka Brain Home Page

Mars Will Never Be Terraformed by Saeger · 2003-06-12 14:43 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Slashback: Mars, Linksys, Torrent

Red Mars is ... an 'almost plausible sci-fi' future-history approach about Colonizing and Terraforming Mars.

It's only plausible if you still think that technology is advancing linearly, instead of exponentially, and only if you assume humans will still be stuck in our fragile biological form for a period longer than the centuries it takes to terraform a planet in the first place. So no, IMHO, I think we'll sooner end up ripping Mars apart (oh the humanity!) to make better use of its matter, than wasting space & energy by living on its limited surface area.

(Yeah, I've had a slight problem suspending my disbelief for most SF in recent years :)

I'd much rather see Iain Banks' Culture brought to the screen, though that would be just a tad bit more difficult.

--

Re:Largest space structure size by Saeger · 2003-04-12 08:42 · Score: 1 · on Comparing Sci-fi Starship Sizes

Hey, it's THE Robert "Matrioska" Bradbury. Read all your stuff.

Question: In order for a Matrioshka Brain to move (slowly), wouldn't it have to cut out a large section of its shell in order to use the other half of the shell as a solar sail? And, if these Brains are as common as you claim they may be (to account for the missing Dark Matter), shouldn't we be detecting the ass-end of at least a few of these movers?

Oh, and what if the section of brain to be removed doesn't want to 'die', even if it is supposed to be smart enough to know that it's for the overall good of the hive to find a new star? :)

(btw, when loading your Dyson Shell page I'm being asked authenticate twice (with login message: "ETI DOCUMENTS"). The page still loads, but it's annoying.)

--

Largest space structure size by bradbury · 2003-04-12 07:57 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Comparing Sci-fi Starship Sizes

The largest integrated space structure size (that I've encountered) would be a highly evolved Matrioshka Brain which is a multi-layer Dyson Sphere constructed using molecular nanotechnology. This is significantly larger and a heck of a lot more intelligant than a Magog Worldship. There is not normally enough enough material outside of the star in a single solar system to construct one however, so it would require an extended harvesting process within a large gas cloud or perhaps an extensive process of star-lifting [1] to accomplish this. The maximum size of a Matrioshka Brain depends on the size of the star used as a power source and/or the size to which it is reduced. But a diameter of several light years is not unreasonable. This is determined by the heat radiation limits as specified by Stefan's Law. Unlike Niven's Ringworld or a Magog Worldship which may have significant problems with the laws of physics (holding them together is problematic), Matrioshka Brains do seem feasible.

Interestingly, when you navigate a Matrioshka Brain one has to take the star with you -- so changing course or speed does take a rather long time.

1. D. R. Criswell, "Solar System Industrialization: Implications for Interstellar Migrations", Chapter 4 in Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones, (eds.), University of California Press, (1985), pp 50-87.

Re:We've already got one by Thing+1 · 2003-04-07 19:03 · Score: 1 · on Sandia Labs Takes First Steps Toward Fusion

Hey, give me a billion and I'll make a couple for you and we can get off of this fusion chase, and start generating useful energy. From the sun. Like the rest of the Earth.

I don't have a billion, but I can give two pointers to neat ideas of how to harness the power of the sun most efficiently.

The first I read about many years ago: Dyson spheres.

The second I was pointed to by someone replying to a post of mine about Dyson spheres: Matrioshka Brains.

Enjoy!

Terraforming is soooo anthropomorphic... by Saeger · 2003-02-14 11:21 · Score: 2, Interesting · on More on the Mars Ice Cap

I find it amusing to hear that short-sighted planetary chauvinists are still seriously talking about terraforming planets for biological-human colonization in the "far future."

The fact of the matter is that terraforming will take centuries longer than it will take humans to exponentially evolve the technology to not even need a biologically-hospitipal waste-of-matter gravity-well to live on. We'll almost certainly be tearing planets apart for their raw material instead of building human zoos on their surface.

Yeah... I know, talking about the accelerating rate of technological change and about "whacko" trans/posthumanism isn't as sexy as talk'n about terraforming or about meat-popsicles flying around in cool spaceships... so sue me.

--

Re:One question? by Saeger · 2003-01-19 10:30 · Score: 2, Interesting · on UFO Evidence From SOHO Satellite

the limitation of lightspeed in communication is only really a problem if you assume that the users of it have to worry about time.

A theorectical Matrioshka Brain can live as long as its star burns. So what's a few million years lagtime between buddies when you live for hundreds of billions of years? Of course, as you think faster, the world outside seems to come to a standstill; like cityfolk observing countrybumpkins. :)

--

Re:I tell you it's hardcore porn... by Saeger · 2003-01-13 22:11 · Score: 2 · on Adult Content Revenue To Pay For UK 3G Licenses

You planetary chauvinists are all the same. :)

Why trade one gravity well for another?

It might be less romantic, but it's much more economical to build space habitats with artificial gravity (Babylon5/O'Neill-ish). Here, you don't have a gravity well to fight, there's constant sunlight, and there's no wasted mass beneath your feet which could be put better use.

Bio-Human colonization of outer space isn't even our ultimate destiny - "inner space" is. I hope I haven't shocked you with science "fiction" you're not ready to seriously contemplate. :-)

--

Re:We Only See 5% of the Universe? by Thing+1 · 2003-01-05 09:07 · Score: 2 · on The Top Ten Physics Highlights of 2002

I like the matrioshka brain theory.

Cool, thanks! Hadn't seen that one before. Very well thought-out and described in the paper; made for some interesting reading. We're getting closer to being able to create one of these daily -- my guess is within 100 years.

We'll have usable nanotech within 10-30 years, and the pace of technological evolution after that will quicken rapidly as we create computers more powerful than the human brain, which can solve problems quicker and more efficiently. It may be that after achieving nanotech we'll be able to create a Matrioshka Brain in just a couple years.

We truly live in interesting times! ;-)

Re:We Only See 5% of the Universe? by falzer · 2003-01-05 01:47 · Score: 1 · on The Top Ten Physics Highlights of 2002

I like the matrioshka brain theory.

Dark Matter = Dyson Shell Computers? by Saeger · 2002-12-27 01:19 · Score: 1 · on Top 10 Unsolved Space Mysteries

There's one theory that suggests that the missing mass in the universe is actually being hidden by millions of alien "Matrix-like" computing spheres surrounding their massive energy sources (i.e. invisible stars).

I know it's an out there idea, but it's still a plausible explaination.

--

Re:A simple proposal by Saeger · 2002-11-06 20:05 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Beaming into Space

Just for kicks, I've got an even crazier plan:

1. Wait a few decades for exponential progress to give birth to nanotech.
2. Cheaply launch my very own tiny "seed" factory towards a suitable asteroid, where it sets up shop awaiting my specific matter transformation instructions, and defends against "molecular thieves" who might want to jump MY asteroid claim. :)
3. Wait a few more years along the exponential tech curve for "mind uploading" to evolve.
4. Broadcast my "neural blueprint" (with ECC!) off the eggbasket (Earth) to my new asteroid-sized brain; grow and reconfigure to fill available space.
5. Join up with the rest of posthumanity in the newly forming Matrioshka Brain
6. Ponder 42.
7. Simulate new universes for fun... like this one. :)
8. Profit doesn't matter here.

--

Re:Money is no object by Saeger · 2002-09-23 20:28 · Score: 2 · on Purchase Your Personal Gene Map

today there's no real use for it, but what about in 10 years?

In ten or fifteen years I'd expect these same multi-millionaires to be among the first paying for a much more valuable "Brain Map". Wouldn't you much rather know how each and every one of your neurons is interconnected, NOW, than know your DNA's seed-AI sequence to grow a new blank one? I would.

I know it seems crazy to think about, but biological genes won't really mean much to post-humans. Eventually every atom in my body (and in the solar system) will be brain substrate.

--

HP's earlier work, as context by WillWare · 2002-09-10 11:47 · Score: 2 · on HP Labs Creates Densest Memory Chips To Date

There are two cool things here. One is the use of a molding technology to replace photolithography. AFAIK this technique was pioneered by George Whitesides.

The second is the memory element, described only as "an organic synthetic molecule" acting as a non-volatile memory. Non-volatile is good; that means instant-on laptops. As for what it is, they don't say, but their recent work has involved rotaxane and catenane (see Figure 2). Bit flips in those molecules are reversible, another good thing, since you don't want memory that gets tired over time.

This is all cool fun stuff, and I'm glad for it, but I had really been hoping for a follow-up of HP and UCLA's brilliant work on molecular combinatorial logic in January. If they could add an active gain stage to that stuff, they'd really have something amazing.

Re:It's important only if the internet == USA by Saeger · 2002-08-26 16:11 · Score: 2 · on Competing (Commercial) Visions For The Internet Future

So tell me, where is this mythical land...

Independent offworld colonies (in ~50+ years when nanotech makes it easy), followed shortly thereafter by 'mythical lands' in the virtual space of the society of mind.

...and what color is the sky there?

Depends. If you're a planetary chauvinist, the sky will be red (on Mars), otherwise it'll be black or blue depending on the size of the space habitat (4 miles of atmosphere is enough to produce a blue sky overhead, along with clouds, and weird weather).

--

Re:Eh? by Saeger · 2002-08-07 21:05 · Score: 2 · on Atomic Scale Memory

An ideal computer would be one single cube

Actually, the ideal shape would be a sphere, with the outer layers consisting of the less important stuff that doesn't need the lower latency of the core.

Since a serious supercomputer (probably running an artificial intelligence) would need to be VERY large physically ...

I don't think you realize how large. :)

Matrioshka Brains are a fascinating inevitability.

--

Matrioshka Brains by Saeger · 2002-07-15 20:12 · Score: 2 · on Drake on Drake: ET Life A Certainty

I subscribe to the relatively little-known Matrioshka Brain theory, which basically says that a sufficiently advanced civilization will "build a 'Matrix' around their star(s)". This theory also happens to conveniently explain where all the "dark matter" in the universe went.

So why's there no tragedy of the commons with these brains? They're advanced remember; we're just ants in comparison. :-) Just like how the richer/smarter nations on Earth tend to have lower population growth, so too might the MBs have achieved a virtual zero population growth zen.

Anyway, give Bradbury's paper a read, but fair warning: it might be a bit harder to suspend your disbelief when it comes to far-future hard sci-fi with conventional humans at the helm (Star Trek doesn't count). It's only human to anthropomorphize the future I guess...

--

Re:Too late by Saeger · 2002-05-06 00:33 · Score: 2 · on More on the Pluto-Kuiper Express

I guess I should put my comment in context: the Sun is fuel; Pluto is greymatter.

--

Re:Close but no cigar..... by bradbury · 2002-04-03 07:34 · Score: 1 · on Earth to...Earth? Are you there?

I disagree.

It'd take considerably longer than 100 years to terraform either planet.

That statement is only correct if you assume molecular nanotechnology is not feasible. If it is feasible you can completely dismantle Venus or Mars in less than 100 years (Ref here). If you can completely dismantle them, I would argue its highly probable that you could terraform them as well. But it makes no sense to leave the material at the bottom of gravity wells when you could use it for advanced satellites as I discuss here for example.

Re:Close but no cigar..... by bradbury · 2002-04-03 07:34 · Score: 1 · on Earth to...Earth? Are you there?

I disagree.

It'd take considerably longer than 100 years to terraform either planet.

That statement is only correct if you assume molecular nanotechnology is not feasible. If it is feasible you can completely dismantle Venus or Mars in less than 100 years (Ref here). If you can completely dismantle them, I would argue its highly probable that you could terraform them as well. But it makes no sense to leave the material at the bottom of gravity wells when you could use it for advanced satellites as I discuss here for example.

Re:drake equation = retarded. by bradbury · 2002-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1 · on 42 Worlds in 32 Days

Because primitive "life" seems to have begun on Earth very early in its history and that life induces atmospheric changes that can be detected remotely, it does seem reasonable for scientists to develop methods to look for planets capable of supporting such life. The work by the OGLE team and telescopes being planned such as the Kepler Mission will identify planetary systems that more advanced telescopes, such as the Darwin Mission will be able to study for smaller planets that might show signs of primitive life. Simulations suggest that it is feasible for the gas giant planets to migrate into the near-stellar orbits being detected by the OGLE team without disrupting the orbits of planets in the habitable zone at least some of the time. It isn't unreasonable to look for life similar to that found on Earth because the elements on which it is based CHON are the most abundant in the galaxy. There is a much lower probability for life based on alternative chemistries. Given this perspective I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to attempt to put hard numbers on the f_p, n_e and f_l parameters of the Drake Equation.

If assume that we understand most of the basic laws of physics and there isn't any possibility for "magic physics" such as subatomic engineering or faster-than-light travel, then one can predict what "advanced" intelligent technological civilizations may look like. At least some of them seem likely to be Matrioshka Brains. These would be very difficult to detect using our current technology because they radiate heat at close to the cosmic microwave background temperature. To look for signs of advanced technological civilizations we will need to do infrared surveys, something that was suggested by Freeman Dyson more than 40 years ago.

Another form they might take would be bacteria sized hive minds constructed using advanced molecular nanotechnology. In which case they could be all around us on Earth and we would never notice them. To look for those we need to start a program to develop highly parallel air, water and soil samplers that can detect micron and submicron sized bits of "technology".

Free your mind -- the rest will follow.

Re:drake equation = retarded. by bradbury · 2002-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1 · on 42 Worlds in 32 Days

Because primitive "life" seems to have begun on Earth very early in its history and that life induces atmospheric changes that can be detected remotely, it does seem reasonable for scientists to develop methods to look for planets capable of supporting such life. The work by the OGLE team and telescopes being planned such as the Kepler Mission will identify planetary systems that more advanced telescopes, such as the Darwin Mission will be able to study for smaller planets that might show signs of primitive life. Simulations suggest that it is feasible for the gas giant planets to migrate into the near-stellar orbits being detected by the OGLE team without disrupting the orbits of planets in the habitable zone at least some of the time. It isn't unreasonable to look for life similar to that found on Earth because the elements on which it is based CHON are the most abundant in the galaxy. There is a much lower probability for life based on alternative chemistries. Given this perspective I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to attempt to put hard numbers on the f_p, n_e and f_l parameters of the Drake Equation.

If assume that we understand most of the basic laws of physics and there isn't any possibility for "magic physics" such as subatomic engineering or faster-than-light travel, then one can predict what "advanced" intelligent technological civilizations may look like. At least some of them seem likely to be Matrioshka Brains. These would be very difficult to detect using our current technology because they radiate heat at close to the cosmic microwave background temperature. To look for signs of advanced technological civilizations we will need to do infrared surveys, something that was suggested by Freeman Dyson more than 40 years ago.

Another form they might take would be bacteria sized hive minds constructed using advanced molecular nanotechnology. In which case they could be all around us on Earth and we would never notice them. To look for those we need to start a program to develop highly parallel air, water and soil samplers that can detect micron and submicron sized bits of "technology".

Free your mind -- the rest will follow.

Re:drake equation = retarded. by bradbury · 2002-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1 · on 42 Worlds in 32 Days

Because primitive "life" seems to have begun on Earth very early in its history and that life induces atmospheric changes that can be detected remotely, it does seem reasonable for scientists to develop methods to look for planets capable of supporting such life. The work by the OGLE team and telescopes being planned such as the Kepler Mission will identify planetary systems that more advanced telescopes, such as the Darwin Mission will be able to study for smaller planets that might show signs of primitive life. Simulations suggest that it is feasible for the gas giant planets to migrate into the near-stellar orbits being detected by the OGLE team without disrupting the orbits of planets in the habitable zone at least some of the time. It isn't unreasonable to look for life similar to that found on Earth because the elements on which it is based CHON are the most abundant in the galaxy. There is a much lower probability for life based on alternative chemistries. Given this perspective I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to attempt to put hard numbers on the f_p, n_e and f_l parameters of the Drake Equation.

If assume that we understand most of the basic laws of physics and there isn't any possibility for "magic physics" such as subatomic engineering or faster-than-light travel, then one can predict what "advanced" intelligent technological civilizations may look like. At least some of them seem likely to be Matrioshka Brains. These would be very difficult to detect using our current technology because they radiate heat at close to the cosmic microwave background temperature. To look for signs of advanced technological civilizations we will need to do infrared surveys, something that was suggested by Freeman Dyson more than 40 years ago.

Another form they might take would be bacteria sized hive minds constructed using advanced molecular nanotechnology. In which case they could be all around us on Earth and we would never notice them. To look for those we need to start a program to develop highly parallel air, water and soil samplers that can detect micron and submicron sized bits of "technology".

Free your mind -- the rest will follow.

Re:drake equation = retarded. by bradbury · 2002-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1 · on 42 Worlds in 32 Days

Because primitive "life" seems to have begun on Earth very early in its history and that life induces atmospheric changes that can be detected remotely, it does seem reasonable for scientists to develop methods to look for planets capable of supporting such life. The work by the OGLE team and telescopes being planned such as the Kepler Mission will identify planetary systems that more advanced telescopes, such as the Darwin Mission will be able to study for smaller planets that might show signs of primitive life. Simulations suggest that it is feasible for the gas giant planets to migrate into the near-stellar orbits being detected by the OGLE team without disrupting the orbits of planets in the habitable zone at least some of the time. It isn't unreasonable to look for life similar to that found on Earth because the elements on which it is based CHON are the most abundant in the galaxy. There is a much lower probability for life based on alternative chemistries. Given this perspective I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to attempt to put hard numbers on the f_p, n_e and f_l parameters of the Drake Equation.

If assume that we understand most of the basic laws of physics and there isn't any possibility for "magic physics" such as subatomic engineering or faster-than-light travel, then one can predict what "advanced" intelligent technological civilizations may look like. At least some of them seem likely to be Matrioshka Brains. These would be very difficult to detect using our current technology because they radiate heat at close to the cosmic microwave background temperature. To look for signs of advanced technological civilizations we will need to do infrared surveys, something that was suggested by Freeman Dyson more than 40 years ago.

Another form they might take would be bacteria sized hive minds constructed using advanced molecular nanotechnology. In which case they could be all around us on Earth and we would never notice them. To look for those we need to start a program to develop highly parallel air, water and soil samplers that can detect micron and submicron sized bits of "technology".

Free your mind -- the rest will follow.

Re:drake equation = retarded. by bradbury · 2002-03-03 03:04 · Score: 1 · on 42 Worlds in 32 Days

Because primitive "life" seems to have begun on Earth very early in its history and that life induces atmospheric changes that can be detected remotely, it does seem reasonable for scientists to develop methods to look for planets capable of supporting such life. The work by the OGLE team and telescopes being planned such as the Kepler Mission will identify planetary systems that more advanced telescopes, such as the Darwin Mission will be able to study for smaller planets that might show signs of primitive life. Simulations suggest that it is feasible for the gas giant planets to migrate into the near-stellar orbits being detected by the OGLE team without disrupting the orbits of planets in the habitable zone at least some of the time. It isn't unreasonable to look for life similar to that found on Earth because the elements on which it is based CHON are the most abundant in the galaxy. There is a much lower probability for life based on alternative chemistries. Given this perspective I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to attempt to put hard numbers on the f_p, n_e and f_l parameters of the Drake Equation.

If assume that we understand most of the basic laws of physics and there isn't any possibility for "magic physics" such as subatomic engineering or faster-than-light travel, then one can predict what "advanced" intelligent technological civilizations may look like. At least some of them seem likely to be Matrioshka Brains. These would be very difficult to detect using our current technology because they radiate heat at close to the cosmic microwave background temperature. To look for signs of advanced technological civilizations we will need to do infrared surveys, something that was suggested by Freeman Dyson more than 40 years ago.

Another form they might take would be bacteria sized hive minds constructed using advanced molecular nanotechnology. In which case they could be all around us on Earth and we would never notice them. To look for those we need to start a program to develop highly parallel air, water and soil samplers that can detect micron and submicron sized bits of "technology".

Free your mind -- the rest will follow.

Re:Short lived civilizations could be good, not ba by Saeger · 2002-01-30 20:40 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Billions of Habitable Planets?

This is the theory I've adopted as well--it just makes the most sense to me.

We'll eventually be able to create our own "virtual" universes, which are infinitly more interesting, since WE'RE effectively Gods there.

If I had a choice between a) slowly trekking through one boring physical universe, or b) freeing my mind from its limited primordial wetware brain, and moving into my own universe(s), I'd choose the latter.

--

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong: by bradbury · 2001-11-12 00:47 · Score: 2, Informative · on Self-Assembling Nanocomputers

As others point out, even ballistic conduction doesn't get you past the speed-of-light limits. You are also going to have to cool the computers down to close to absolute zero if you want ballistic conduction over very long length scales (otherwise atomic vibrations will disrupt the flow of the electrons).

The limits on power consumption have relatively little to do with electrical resistance and a great deal to do with erasing bits. As Landauer and Bennett have shown, you can compute for essentially free but you have to pay a price of generating entropy (heat) when you erase bits. To achieve the really significant increases we have to move from non-reversible architectures (all current commercial computers) to reversible architectures that minimize the number of bits erased. Michael Frank is one of the leading people working in this area.

As Drexler discusses in Nanosystems, using reversible rod-logic nanocomputers, one should be able to get from our current 10^9 ops/sec chips to 10^21 ops/sec in 1 cm^3 before one hits the heat removal limits. So the anticipated throughput increase is ~10^12 ops which a trillion vs. your estimate(?) of 90 billion. But it isn't going to run on a single battery. Its consuming (and radiating) 100,000W. Interestingly enough, since such a nanocomputer has ~10^3-10^5 times the processing capacity of the human brain in 10^-3 times the volume such a computer is probably worth a million or more human brains (if we can figure out how to program it...).